金剛般若論會釋 3.22

3.22

自下論文第二重料簡有二，初、云何故先說見淨，後說智淨者，論自釋云，「為應知中證，故安立見；為教彼彼眾生寂靜心，故安立智」，非所應知中，先須自證故，先說見淨；自證解已，為教眾生斷惡修善名寂靜心故，次說知他；此則自覺覺他為次第也。次、釋同是一住處故，於智淨中安立所知心非心，類前見淨中說有能見五眼亦非眼，理亦得成。若爾，復福具足與見智亦同一住處，何故不於福具文後總安立者，福是見智因，同一住處，福慧體不同，是以別安立。

From here below, the second part of the treatise text, the re-examination, has two parts: First, as to why purity of vision is spoken of first and purity of cognition is spoken of later, the treatise itself explains: 'In order to realize among what should be known, vision is established; in order to teach the various sentient beings a quiescent mind, cognition is established.' In what should be known, one must first realize it oneself; hence purity of vision is spoken of first. Having realized and understood it oneself, in order to teach sentient beings to eliminate evil and cultivate good, which is called a quiescent mind, knowing others is spoken of next; this is taking self-awakening and awakening others as the sequence. Next, explaining that because they are of the same single abode, within the purity of cognition it establishes that the known mind is not mind, analogously to the preceding purity of vision where it is said that the five eyes that can see are also not eyes; the principle is also valid. If so, then the endowment with merit and vision and cognition also belong to the same single abode; why is it not established collectively after the text on endowment with merit? Merit is the cause of vision and cognition; while belonging to the same abode, the substances of merit and wisdom are different, which is why it is established separately.